Compulsory medical intervention versus external constraint in pandemic control

Would compulsory treatment or vaccination for COVID-19 be justified? In England, there would be significant legal barriers to it. However, we offer a conditional ethical argument in favour of allowing compulsory treatment and vaccination, drawing on an ethical comparison with external constraints-such as quarantine, isolation and 'lockdown'-that have already been authorised to control the pandemic in this jurisdiction. We argue that, if the permissive English approach to external constraints for COVID-19 has been justified, then there is a case for a similarly permissive approach to compulsory medical interventions.

Automated summary

The article presents a conditional ethical argument in favor of compulsory treatment and vaccination for COVID-19, drawing on an ethical comparison with external constraints that have already been authorized in controlling the pandemic. It argues that if the permissive approach to external constraints in England has been justified, then a similarly permissive approach to compulsory medical interventions is also justified.